WTF ? Read what you replied to. You *are* hard of reading.
I figure if you're smart enough to enable logging of connections to your router, you're probably smart enough to enable the firewall, change the default username/password and maybe even use WPA2, use a list of allowed MAC addresses and hide your SSID. My neighbour's router had been up for some 34 days when I looked. I didn't download any videos, just checked e-mail and did some messaging, then disconnected. That's how I found out that TPG had my connection transferred so quick. I wouldn't use up anyone's download quota. If ignorance of the fact that your laptop, with default settings, may be set to automatically connect to wireless networks within range makes you legally responsible for the transgression, would not also the ignorance of the owner of the wireless access point not be equally responsible?
I don't care one way or the other , the feds however have and won so best you go read the particular instructional .
Ignore it if you wish however do check the law it's quite disturbing and while alter your expectation markedly .
Not according to the way it was explained to us , trespass was apllicable in the explanation even though a door is unlocked it is not an imperative to enter and thats why intent is so important
Is that an OMG I re-read it and realised I'm talking about something other than the thread ? Pull your head in, old fart
Yep it's VERY not-uncommon! I work with a few people ex broadband help-desk and they're full of stories about people who bought wireless accounts that they never actually used 'cause they just accidentally leeched their neighbour's wireless instead!
With no antenna at all? I have no idea... I wouldn't expect it to work. With the original 2.2dbi antenna I get roughly 75m range. This is a totally flat area in a rural locality so I expect that interference is low. There are 2 other wireless ADSL LANS in my street, I can only detect 1 of them using Netstumbler from my house and that is so weak it barely registers. I'm on channel 1, the one I can detect is on channel 11 and the one down the street is on channel 6. I also get about 100m at work. I suspect your noisy RF environment is reducing your range. G-S
Alright, a test for you all.... "I am not a lawyer, but......" "I am not a lawyer, yet, but....." Which of the two is more convincing? As for the folk who claim that the sleep with lawyers...<shrug> regards, CrazyCam
Sure they have. Just you go trying to actually prove intent, and see how far you get. I've no doubt that you could prove they accessed it. But there's very little chance of being able to specifically prove intent to use that particular network, and to prove that the user even knew that they had accessed that particular network in the first place. The only way you could prove such intent was if they had managed to access a secure network, since you can't just do that accidentally (like you could with the abovementioned unsecured network). Whatever the Fed may have done previously, I'd say if you actually read the details properly, you'll find it was nothing like the specifics of the actual situation being discussed in this instance. Perhaps a bit more knowledge of computer networks/hardware might make the difference in understanding why this is so.
What the law says, and what the law can actually prove, are two VERY different things in this instance. And that's the point. I don't need to dispute what you say about the legal wording, and I'm happy to accept your word on it without question. The reason? Because I know that no matter what the law actually says, there's no way you can prove intent to access a completely unsecured wireless network.
( I know you will find such things occurring)you just need to look not up to me , but the feds did point is the law is worded so you have to prove no intent incorrect Perhaps a bit yes you really need to get up to speed .
more proof you have no idea about the facts of law now you made the claim prove it incorrect and proven previously buy the feds that intent needn't be proven merely that no intent is on occasion impossible to prove
If you're gonna argue pedantically, do it coherently will you ? Who wants to purchase the federal police ? What does "intent needn't be proven merely prove that no intent is on occasion inmpossible to improve" mean ? Others argue with gibberish, you normally do a bit better than that. FAIL!
